"Champs de Mai: Military or Politics " Topic

I will take this opportunity to comment on the fact that several 'well-published' authors have made comments on the events prior to the Waterloo campaign while purchasing material from the 1815 website, in particular about the ceremony of the Champs de Mai held on the 1st June 1815. These comments have focused on the military aspects of the ceremony, which were certainly a small part of the event; but it is evident that so many 'historians' forget that much (if not all) that occurred in France during the famous 100 days was driven by politics. The Champs de Mai was a political ceremony attended by the electorial colleges and political houses to amend the constitution, which Napoleon hoped to stabilise his power. Indeed, Napoleon had hoped that his estranged wife, Marie-Louis, would be returned and that their being together would strike a cord amongst the populous as well. However, when it became evident that this would not happen the importance of the military aspects became greater and were enhanced. It is interesting to note that very few of the detachments who were present from the Armée du Nord were recorded as having returned from the Champ de Mai when the returns were taken on the 10th June and subsequently these detachments have been forgotten on most, if not all, of the various orders of battle which have been created for the army. But the fact remains that the events prior to, and even during the campaign, were dictated by the political and not military situation: a fact that appears still to be evident in modern military operations.

Dear John Franklin
It was a delight to see a fellow author state clearly the problem with memoirs and writings that occurred just after the Napoleonic Wars especially those from the French point of view.

Classic examples is the myths and political slant upon the writing.
1. Gribeauval System was the only ordnance at Waterloo. There were just a few Gribeauval 12-pdrs and the rest were AnXI System.
2. AnXI carriages were poorly constructed. The changes in 1808 were due to the financial troubles.
3. Gassendi revising the Artillery Manual in 1819 to regain favour with the King.
4. The blame for defeat upon Grouchy etc….

It is to consider when the person wrote, purpose of writing and under what political restraints.

I am not sure whether you have noticed that there is a bias in the way that a number of nationalities write within the Napoleonic Period. The British consider that the oponents have the best weapons and equipment. The French invented everything and are superior. The German is very analytic and often number orientated. etc….

Stephen

Stephen, of all the nations that participated in the Waterloo campaign, the accounts and memoirs written by the French are without doubt the most difficult to rely upon. Why? They lost! That is not to say that the victors were any more reliable; that is another story altogether.

Dear John
Thank you for your comments. That made me chuckle. It is important as you are doing to make available the material to show that it was a European victory over Napoleon and not just a British one.

Stephen

Interesting thoughts

As a relative newcomer to Napoleanics, it is striking how in popular culture the myth is that the Brits essentially single handedly defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, which is probably related to a combination of factors, including the large number of books written in English by British or American authors – the scholarly works now available help to provide a much more balanced picture – Dr. Summerfield's books, for example, have kindled an interest in the Prussian army which I never thought I would have!

"As a relative newcomer to Napoleanics, it is striking how in popular culture the myth is that the Brits essentially single handedly defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, which is probably related to a combination of factors, including the large number of books written in English by British or American authors…"

Frederick, have you read "Waterloo: New Perspectives", by David Hamilton-Williams, honored by the International Napoleon Society for his lifetime services to Napoleonic history?

Allen

I began reading books about Napoleonics when I was in high school (grad. 1969). Books I read discussed the Prussian contribution in such a way that I never thought the British, alone, won Waterloo. Was that just me?

Dear Frederick
The remarkable thing that occured in the campaign was the trust between the Allied Commanders (Wellington and Blucher)despite the political situation where Prussia and Britain were rivals. Prussia already bankrupted by the French occupation then expended her energy in the War of Liberation.

This unity and trust was absent in the French Army. The material was probably the best Napoleon had commanded since 1807 BUT the officers did not know the men, distrust and politics poisoned the plans at all the different steps.

Anyone who has refought Waterloo will no doubt tell you that Wellington and his mongrel army performed well above expections. If he was not certain of support of the Prussian Army, he would have withdrawn and left Brussels to the French.

Ever since my first books on Napoleonic Wars [Percoli (1977) and the Altmark book on Hougomont (1976)] at the age of 10 from my father, I never considered Waterloo anything other than an Allied victory. Through the writings of a few modern writers have made it clearer. The recent books on the Dutch-Belgians have been enlightening.

Stephen

Indeed.

"Ever since my first books on Napoleonic Wars [Percoli (1977) and the Altmark book on Hougomont (1976)] at the age of 10 from my father, I never considered Waterloo anything other than an Allied victory."

Odd how the same books affected an awful lot of us. I'll add one more: the LIFE magazine special issue (sesquicentennial, I believe) on Waterloo; I was ten at that time, myself. The paintings of Blucher and the Prussians standing in the gloom at Ligny… I still carry that magazine with me after 45 years.

Allen

I would like to add something here in relation to the Allied army, and especially the contribution of the Dutch and Belgian troops. The role of the British contingent has been covered in great detail, and quite rightly so because they fought with great courage and endurance; however, the role of the Dutch and Belgian troops has been almost competely overlooked in the English language. First and foremost the campaign took place in their country, and of course, the political backdrop affected them directly. Napoleon knew this and hoped to influence the people by distributing leaflets and propoganda. However, there is no evidence that any of the populous, let alone the military, gave support to the French, other than that which might be expected when 100,000 enemy troops are camped outside your village. The continued popular support that the Allies enjoyed, and the fact that a large proportion of the men were fighting to defend their own country undoubtedly had a galvanising effect on the army commanded by Wellington, despite the fact that the Duke himself had great reservations about the Dutch and Begians. This has been one of the main reasons for my selecting the Netherlands material for the first book with 1815 Limited. I hope that the contents will provide depth beyond a straightforward account of the fighting.

"…the role of the Dutch and Belgian troops has been almost competely overlooked in the English language."

Again, I must have missed that; even my childhood readings included their role. I do hope that you will provide a good English editor for Mr. Muilwijk's work:

link

Allen

Allen: Thanks for the suggestion – will give it a read! A friend of mine has a tattered but still very readable copy of that same issue of Life – I read it a few years ago – as you note, those pictures stick with you

The comments about the Dutch and Belgian troops are right on – it has only been recently that I have appreciated the importance of those brave men in Napoleon's defeat

But also read this, at least some of it:

TMP link

(The full eight pages are rather exhausting…)

Allen

I am not sure the relevance of a link to postings made on David Hamlton-Williams books as part of this thread. If you are suggesting that the material being published by 1815 Limited is fabricated, I refute this absolutely. Indeed, the reason we are producing the 'Correspondence' books is to allow fellow historians and enthusiasts who do not have the language skills to obtain a fully translated version of the various letters and reports, and to place them into context. I live in Switzerland and speak three languages (English, French and German), but I have had to rely on Erwin and two other well-respected parties to translate the original handwritten Dutch manuscripts. For the record, all of the material published by 1815 Limited is edited by Martin Windrow, the man responsible for most of the Osprey titles and a best selling author on many military history subjects in his own right. The fact remains that historians have, and continue to make errors (I was reading the notes and annotations in a new book of British Waterloo letters by an author only yesterday and the rubbish being quoted as fact in the notes beggers belief!). Our education, for want of a better word, has to be based on the publication of contemporary material from credible eye-witnesses which covers all of the participants. It is very difficult to know in the first instance who is credible. However, consultation of a cross-section of material helps us to identify those who are liars and those who are genuine. Unfortunately, H-W is one of the former. You have my assurance that 1815 Limited is a genuine source of material on the Waterloo campaign.

Anyone who has refought Waterloo will no doubt tell you that Wellington and his mongrel army performed well above expections. If he was not certain of support of the Prussian Army, he would have withdrawn and left Brussels to the French.

Stephen, I would suggest that Wellington was no more 'certain' of Prussian support than I am that you will be alive to read this reply or that I will in turn be alive to read your response, if any.

My point being that 'certainty' is a commodity much referred to and yet far rarer than gold or diamonds. Wellington played a gamble based on his assessment of the situation and his knowledge of his allies. He basically threw the dice and won.

Recent efforts to take the credit from Wellington and liberally chuck it anywhere else across Europe where it might stick seem to me revisionist and essentialy anti-British.

Lots of people played a part but the key man was Wellington. History knew that as soon as the battle had ended and I don't see any number of modern day revisionists changing that. I have previously suggested that most modern day historians appear intent of finding some new little 'fact' or other to build a case around, being as otherwise they would be duplicating work already carried out. That isn't to say that they do not have a purpose, and often interesting additional information can slightly alter perspectives, but the emphasis is on 'slight'. We may discover that somebody or other jacked up the role of a person or unit for some personal reason, but this is like Toyota having to change a few parts on their Corolla. The result does not suddenly turn the vehicle into a Nissan Micra.

Old Bear, I agree that there is a danger that modern day historians can 'appear' intent on diminishing the part of the British troops during the campaign, and this is not a point I take lightly. A historian should be impartial, although there are many modern historians with an 'agenda'. This is not history, simply malice. But the fact remains that students of military history, be it Waterloo or the Alamo, especially those based in Europe, are able to take a more open and embracing view of events because the barriers which existed have been reduced or removed. The nationalistic stance taken by historians of the 19th and early 20th century needs to be taken into consideration, and this will inevitably mean a revision of the standard 'account' that have perpetuated, such as 20,000 Frenchmen attacking Hougoumont and being thwarted by 2,000 Guardsmen. This 'story' is not true. For me to state that this is true is not 'revisionary' or in some way meant to undermine the heroic defence of the farm complex, merely a more complete and impartial analysis of the information available. This in turn raises a bigger question, one which I might post on the boards: what is history?

John, I quite agree, and I don't consider your example to be revisionism so much as clarification. There's nothing wrong with that and in many cases can help make sense of oddities in accounts.

"I am not sure the relevance of a link to postings made on David Hamlton-Williams books as part of this thread."

As I had recommended his "Waterloo" to Frederick, I felt it was due a caveat. Maybe I should have just included an in the recommendation.

"For the record, all of the material published by 1815 Limited is edited by Martin Windrow…"

That is reassuring.

Allen